Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr. Markey.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Hall.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and terrorism or espionage. It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury. It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders. And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for which the penalties are less severe. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to the service men and women of the Coast Guard. The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the President's request. The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical shipments and report to Congress. H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security, authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activity. The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending and revoking a mariner's license. The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to the Coast Guard commandant. H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels. The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime pollution. Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made it clear that the Bush administration intends to continue its current strategy in Iraq with no changes, despite absolutely no progress on political reconciliation. Today when we listen to both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify again, it's important to remember that the principal objective of the President's troop escalation plan was to give the Iraq Government time and the proper environment to create political reconciliation. I recently returned from Iraq, and it's obvious that the political reconciliation that we hoped for is not taking place. They have had both, but the reconciliation remains elusive. General Petraeus himself has admitted that there has been no sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation in Iraq. How much longer will General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker and this administration demand our troops and our Nation continue to sacrifice for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling and unable to secure its own future? I would like to hear the answer to that question today, because many of us here in Congress do not believe it is our Nation's best interest to keep more troops on the ground in Iraq.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, at a time of serious economic uncertainty, Democrats have passed a 2009 Democratic budget last month that invests in Federal programs that will boost our economy. In February, our economy shed 63,000 jobs in fields across-the-board. In order to compete in the new economy, we need to invest in innovation, energy, education and infrastructure, and that is exactly what this Democratic budget does. Our budget provides crucial funding for the Democratic innovation agenda and the America Competes Act to enhance our competitive edge by increasing funding for important math and science education research. We also increase funding for efficient and renewable energy programs so we can create the green collar jobs of the future. Our budget also invests $7.1 billion more than the President for essential education and job training programs that are so important at a time when Americans are losing their jobs. Madam Speaker, the Democratic budget strives to build a better economy without raising a penny in additional taxes.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1041 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1041 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way on the crucial issues of intelligence-gathering. I commend Chairmen Conyers and Reyes for their diligence in providing much-needed attention in evaluation of FISA, while ensuring that we provide our Nation's intelligence community with the necessary tools and resources to prevent a future terrorist attack on our Nation. Over the last few weeks, my office phone lines have been burning up with calls from constituents regarding FISA and the need for Congress to take action. Unfortunately, the calls were prompted by a far- reaching misinformation campaign aimed to scare the public into believing that the House majority is in some way prohibiting our Nation's intelligence community from monitoring the terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only are these claims false, they are unconscionable. I don't believe any Member of this institution, Republican or Democrat, wants to shackle our Nation's intelligence community from preventing another terrorist attack. Frankly, I am getting alarmed by the claims by some of my colleagues. For the last couple of weeks, we have heard only one message from the other side of the aisle: take up the Senate bill because it has the support of the President. I have no interest in being a rubber stamp for this administration, nor of any elected body, even the Senate. That is not why I was sent to Congress. I certainly mean no disrespect to the Senate, but my constituents sent me to Congress to use my judgment and conscience to help govern. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee said it best earlier in the week during our Rules Committee hearing when he said we are not an appendage of the Senate. I couldn't agree with Mr. Conyers more. It is our responsibility to the American people to exercise our legislative duty. Furthermore, with an issue like FISA and intelligence-gathering, I am confident that the American people would expect the House to exercise that duty to the fullest extent possible. We are a bicameral form of government. The changes we are proposing to the Senate bill today represent a powerful step forward in the legislative process. The administration has made it overwhelmingly clear that they need to use electronic surveillance to track and identify terrorist targets. And despite the misinformation campaign and the rhetoric, the proposal we will vote on today makes it easier for our Nation's intelligence community to wiretap suspected terrorists by explicitly not requiring a court order to wiretap targets believed to be outside the United States. In addition, the proposal provides for surveillance of terrorists and other targets overseas who may be communicating with Americans. And we are all well aware of the issue of immunity for telecom companies. It seems like that is all we have talked about here for the past several months. As a former prosecutor, I can say from experience and without hesitation, you never provide immunity to anyone unless you are sure whom you are giving the immunity to and why you are giving the immunity out. One point that has not received enough emphasis over the last few weeks is that the telecom companies have immunity under current law. However, the problem is that anytime a telecommunication company goes to court, this administration steps in and says this is classified material and the question is deemed state secret, and therefore you are not allowed to talk about it. In that way, the telecom companies are not allowed to even defend themselves, but rather have to sit there and answer for any charges civilly made against them. I, for one, couldn't agree more that if the intelligence community goes to a telecom company with adequate authorization and says, We need communication records for person X because he or she is believed to be a terrorist, the telecom company deserves to be afforded that protection. Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea what the administration requested and what the telecom companies have provided. Our proposal provides a commonsense, balanced approach to address the immunity issue. We want to provide the telecom companies with a legal way to present their defense in a secure proceeding and in a secure way in district court without the administration asserting state secret privileges to block those defenses. And, again, don't be fooled by the misinformation campaign. We are not talking about broadcasting the content of those defenses over the public airwaves, rather just the opposite will be done in camera and in secret. This would involve ex parte proceedings in camera. That is one- on-one telecom company and a Federal district court judge behind closed doors. That way, the determination of whether or not the classified material is, in fact, a state secret is made by a neutral third party and not just this administration. Finally, our proposal establishes a bipartisan national commission with subpoena power to investigate and report to the American people on the administration's warrantless surveillance activities and to recommend procedures and protections for the future in much the same way that the 9/11 Commission did. Mr. Speaker, we must bring the misinformation campaign and partisan wrangling to an end. There is no question that there are groups and individuals out there who seek to do us harm. There is no question that my colleagues and I want to give the people who protect us from the danger every tool they need to keep fighting terrorism. The proposal we will vote on today will, in fact, provide our Nation's intelligence community with the resources to prevent future acts of terrorism while protecting the freedoms of the citizens under the Constitution. Everyone in this body wants the same thing, and that is to protect American citizens. This bill does exactly that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that this debate is becoming more and more political rather than focusing on what we're here to do, and that is to ensure that the people of this country have absolutely the best FISA bill that they can, a bill that not only protects us but ensures that the Constitution is protected as well. That's what this FISA bill does. It takes the best of all the things that we have been trying to achieve over the past several months and incorporates it into a bill, including unshackling the telecom companies so that if they have done what has been asked of them and what is permitted to do under the law, that they are allowed immunity. We certainly don't want to prosecute people who have been trying to help our country and keep our country safe. Nonetheless, this puts into effect the important factors of ensuring that those things are done. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Holt.

Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from California. I just want to assure him that I think I speak for the entire Democratic Caucus when I say that we share his concern for the safety of this country. However, when he speaks about things that just blatantly aren't true, for some reason, and I don't know if it's an attempt to frighten the American people, it's troubling. This bill, this FISA bill, allows the government to wiretap any foreign national, whether they are overseas or they are here. This is just blatantly untrue. What he says about the fact is that we cannot wiretap, we can't monitor a person that comes to this country who is a foreigner. It's just blatantly untrue. This FISA bill allows that to happen. It's somewhat disheartening when people mention facts that just aren't true, and I certainly hope it's not for political reasons; but let's stick to the facts, because the facts are clearly that this bill allows that to happen. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we must bring the misinformation campaign and partisan wrangling to an end. There is no question that there are groups and individuals out there who would seek to do America harm. There is no question that my colleagues and I want to give the people who protect us from the danger every tool they need to fight terrorism. The proposal we will vote on today will, in fact, provide our Nation's Intelligence Community with the resources to prevent future acts of terrorism, while protecting the freedoms of our citizens under the Constitution. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1041 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington Strike section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``Sec. 2. Upon rejection of the motion to concur specified in section 1, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendmemt to H.R. 3773 is hereby adopted.''. (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the l09th Congress.) The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would again just like to point out that what this bill does is unshackle the telecommunications companies because what we do want to do in this particular case is ensure that they are able to defend themselves if they have cooperated with the government and followed the law, and that is exactly what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, later today the House will have an opportunity to vote on a strong new FISA bill that has been negotiated over the last couple of weeks. The new legislation will modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. First, it rejects the President's plan to provide blanket immunity to telecom companies who turned over information about their customers. Instead, it gives the Federal court the exclusive opportunity to hear clear classified evidence in order to make a determination whether telecom companies should be held liable for their actions. Our legislation also requires a special bipartisan commission to investigate the Bush administration's use of wiretaps and other surveillance programs. The commission would be similar to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that played a critical role in reviewing the events leading up to 9/11 and developing recommendations on how to best protect our Nation. Madam Speaker, House Democrats are hopeful that Republicans will join us in supporting a FISA bill that protects our Nation and our civil liberties.